Talk:Queer

overly narrow definition

queer, as discussed in queer theory, is avery broad term. as a cisgender, heterosexual, monogamous man, I identify as queer because I seek the destruction of gender and I actively work to subvert it.

language which was inclusive to me identifying as queer was previously part of this article. it seems as though over the last 5 years this article has shrunk the definition to only include non-cis or non-heterosexual people. if the sources which supported the previous versions have remained authoritative (I think this is true but I could be wrong) then I think we should place that line back into the summary.

People who reject traditional gender identities and seek a broader and deliberately ambiguous alternative to the label LGBT may describe themselves as queer.

commie (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Queer, at this point, seems to have multiple, mutually exclusive definitions. There are sources claiming that queer is a slur that refers specifically to LGBT people. There are others that claim the term is not just not a slur, but rather has had it's definition broadened almost to the point of meaninglessness. I think the quality of this article is contingent on confronting the diversity of definitions and interpretations that seem to have arisen around the term, which unfortunately, is no simple task. Tdmurlock (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The various meanings are, as you say, mutually exclusive. Per WP:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, "...articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title." This article is about one meaning, and other meanings are only relevant to the extent they help inform the history and context of that concept.--Trystan (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Diminutive term

A relatively small syntax correction, but nonetheless an important one.

The use of the term 'several' in the paragraph relating to "Criticism" has a diminutive effect. A synonym for this word in this context would be 'few' which is misleading.

Indeed, the article then goes on to say that use of the word queer "marks a social and political divide in the LGBT community" which is no small thing.

I therefore propose changing this word to 'many' as it better communicates that this is an issue of greater significance and controversy within the LGBT community:

"many people and organizations, both LGBT and non-LGBT, object to some or all uses of the word for various reasons."

For context, there are far more people who identify using the more traditional terms gay, lesbian or bisexual than queer – see official UK Census 2021:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualorientationenglandandwales/census2021

(NB: I've not corrected the misspelling of the word 'organisations' as I know this is also a controversial issue; one I'm not touching with a barge-pole!) Greg (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of good sourcing on the point, I think some would be the most neutral term to use here.--Trystan (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

proposed changes in lede

I propose to change the lede as follows:

Queer is a slur used against LGBT people. Originally meaning 'strange' or 'peculiar', queer came to be used pejoratively against LGBT people in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, LGBT activists, such as the members of defunct Queer Nation, began to reclaim the word as a deliberately provocative and politically radical alternative to the more purportedly assimilationist branches of the LGBT community.

@Trystan you mention sources but the section you reverted had sources I added classifying the term queer as a slur specifically referring to LGBT people.

Tdmurlock (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Your proposed edits would be a fundamental change to the topic of the article, which is queer as a reclaimed umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or not cisgender. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so not all possible meanings of the word queer are included in that scope. The article discusses other meanings in "Origins and early use" because those meanings are relevant to understanding how the meaning that is the subject of this article evolved, but they are distinct topics. If sources warrant it, Queer (slur) could be created as a separate article; I would suggest going through the WP:AFC process.

The comment about sources in my edit summary was referring to the earlier edit to the lead I was also rolling back.--Trystan (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The reason queer has been reclaimed by some LGBT people in the first place points to the fact that the term queer is indeed a slur. The first sentence of the wikipedia page for the n-word says outright that it "is a racial slur used against black people". The fact that some individuals choose to reclaim the n-word, or that some LGBT people choose to reclaim the term queer, does not mean that those words aren't slurs. In fact, it's evidence of the opposite, these terms are reclaimed specifically because they are slurs. Tdmurlock (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of the term nigger is that while it has been reclaimed by some black people, it is still overwhelmingly used as a racial slur. As a term it has not been reclaimed to anywhere near the degree that queer has by LGBTQ+ people, nor do those who have reclaimed the term use it as part of their identity in the same way that queer people do.

A more apt comparison here would be the terms faggot and tranny. Both have been reclaimed to some degree by parts of the LGBTQ+ community, as you will find individuals who use the term as part of their identity, however both terms are still seen predominantly as a pejorative slur within the wider community. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Trystan here. Article leads follow their bodies, as the purpose of the lead is to summarise the article's content. Significantly more of the article's content is about the 40 year old reclamation of the term by queer people, and its modern non-pejorative usage by many LGBTQ+ individuals and allies. We already appropriately summarise in the lead the origins of the term as a pejorative in a manner and length appropriate to the content about that history in the article body.

On a potential Queer (slur) spin-off, I'd be concerned about it becoming a WP:POVFORK. I don't think contemporary sources really discuss the term in isolation from its modern non-pejorative usage. I'm open to being convinced otherwise though, if the sourcing truly supports it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree a Queer (slur) spin-off would make no sense. Tdmurlock (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that the sourcing likely isn't there to support an article on queer as a slur, but wanted to raise it as a a possible option that could be explored. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of available sources are on queer as a reclaimed umbrella term, which is reflected in the structure of this article.--Trystan (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

being fair, even sources that cheerlead queer as a reclaimed umbrella term often go into how the term is controversial specifically because it originated as a slur. GLAAD's Media Reference Guide specifically acknowledges that the term Queer "is not a universally accepted term even within the LGBTQ community". Tdmurlock (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This is so common in sources. Our article matching the approach in such sources seems like a good thing to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It already is reflected in the article with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. The "Early pejorative use" and "Criticism" sections in particular go into it in-depth. The other sections of the article reflect the large volume of sources that explore other aspects of the topic.--Trystan (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I get how my comment could be misconstrued. I agree entirely with you that our article already matches the approach taken by many high-quality articles. I don't think it needs to be radically changed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a bit reactive there! Substantially changing the scope of the article is a perennial issue, so it is easy to jump to conclusions. Happy to consider constructive proposals for change.--Trystan (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

References

"Queer is an umbrella term" or "queer is sometimes used an umbrella term"?

@Sideswipe9th

Hey homie, The only mentions of queer as an umbrella term in the body is under the criticism section- "Some LGBT people dislike the use of queer as an umbrella term." The only other mention of the phrase "umbrella term" is in reference to the usage of the term gay as an umbrella term. In accordance with WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY I propose we change "queer is an umbrella term" to "queer is sometimes used as an umbrella term", as the body only disputes the notion that queer is a universally accepted umbrella term.

Note the google scholar search for "queer is sometimes used as an umbrella term" comes up with several pages of results demonstrating academic literature employing that exact phrasing. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C29&q=%22queer+is+sometimes+used+as+an+umbrella%22+&btnG= Tdmurlock (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh, I could have sworn we had content about it being an umbrella term in the article body. It's use as an umbrella term is decidedly uncontroversial, see Human Rights Campaign, UK National Archives, University of Florida, a 2019 research paper in Sexuality & Culture, Britannica.

To be honest, I'd maybe take a closer look at what's been written in the criticism section. Generally speaking we avoid criticism sections in articles, because they tend to be a nightmare to keep complaint with WP:NPOV. On the one hand I'd maybe look at more naturally weaving that content into other relevant sections. However, a large part of it, including the content that you're relying on (ie Some LGBT people dislike the use of queer as an umbrella term... is wholly unsourced. It seems that content was added back in May 2019 as part of a series of rewrites to avoid a different type of WP:CSECTION, though even then it wasn't sourced and the content it was re-phrasing was very poorly sourced to a site that we don't consider reliable.

Overall I think a re-write of that section, based on actually reliable sources, along with properly integrating the rest of the negative content into other relevant sections per CSECTION is in order here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2024

Change "19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s," to "20th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, ". 154.47.98.113 (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The anti-LGBT pejorative use dates from the late 1800s. The reclamation in the 1980s came about a century later.--Trystan (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)